Allowed¶18

Shamshul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2025NABAIL/8489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; interim anticipatory bail granted till 11.11.2025; Section 353 IPC; Case Crime No. 317 of 2017; Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur; chargesheet already submitted; offence punishable up to seven years; personal bond Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 relied upon; NABAIL No. 8489 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha; cancellation clause on breach of conditions; listed fresh on 11.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant till 11.11.2025 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions; case to be listed fresh on 11.11.2025. ¶18

Shamshul vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, who apprehends arrest in Case Crime No. 317 of 2017 under Section 353 IPC (chargesheet filed; offence punishable up to seven years), is entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶11

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant Shamshul was released on interim anticipatory bail till 11.11.2025 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; appearance before the trial Court on fixed dates; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade witnesses; cooperation during trial and non-misuse of liberty; no departure from India without prior permission of the Court concerned).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail; the case is to be listed fresh on 11.11.2025.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.) granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant Shamshul in Case Crime No. 317 of 2017, under Section 353 IPC, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur, till 11.11.2025, expressly without expressing any opinion on merits. It was contended that the chargesheet had already been submitted and the offence was punishable up to seven years. Referring to the parameters laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Court directed release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial Court on fixed dates; no inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; cooperation during trial and non-misuse of the liberty of interim anticipatory bail; and no departure from India without prior permission of the Court concerned. In default of any condition, the prosecution was left free to apply for cancellation. The case was ordered to be listed fresh on 11.11.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8489 of 2025

Shamshul

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 72

¶9

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶10

1. Heard Sri Shivhare learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2017, under Section 353 IPC, Police Station Kurara District Hamirpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that chargesheet has already been submitted and the offence is punishable upto seven years. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that he has not received any instructions as yet.

¶14

5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme

¶15

NABAIL No. 8489 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶18

6. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicantShamshul involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till 11.11.2025 with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of interim anticipatory bail bail.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

7. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein.

¶24

8. List this case as fresh on 11.11.2025.

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

October 17, 2025 Abhishek

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamshul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Chaubey vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Alias Petha Alias Naresh vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Puri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay and Another vs State of U.P.